Blowback

Trackbacks/Pings

Comments

AP, I agree with you on the dress. While she’s at it, AC could also mix in some free sunlight, or perhaps a UV lamp. So when do we see MM v. Matthews in the steel cage? Not that asshat wants any of that…

I watched that last night quite by accident. Ann needs to try and limit the stand up comedy attempt and rely on his ususal quick and hard hitting factual responses. CM seemed to be real hung up on a comment Ann made regarding the Demo G_d Clinton saying he was gay. The comment was made on an interview on CNBC, so without Chris mentioning it nobody else was aware. It was hard to make out Ann’s reasoning but I believe it had to do with the reason the femminists didn’t attack Slick Willie over all the accusations of sexual misconduct is because they must have known he was gay and therefore knew the accusations were false.
The one thing I found enlightening though was that when the crowd was asking questions the 2 African-American gentlemen appeared to be Ann supporters. It is becoming more and more apparent that the liberals hold over the black community is losing it’s grip and the African-Americans are finally leaving the last plantation.

Damn, if Ann had been born a man what a great boxer she could have been. Great offense … a great counterpuncher on defense … has the ability to take a shot … has knockout power … smart enough to size up her opponent and manipulate them into fighting her fight … knows how to irritate them into making mistakes.

This video was a perfect demonstration of all that.

Put aside your emotions about Ann for a minute and you might actually learn something from her.

Also, did I mention that Chris Matthews is a retard? No? Well, he is. I was suprised she actually went on the show until I realized something: She’s Super-Ann! Able to leap over-sized liberal nit-wits in a single bound! How stupid of me to think for even one second that Ann would not show up on Hardball.

Matthews shows the typical liberal attack method – focus on bits and pieces of information and twist that to support your position – instead of focusing on the entire body of work and what the actual message is.

AC may be a little rough around the edges at times, but she gets her point across and she is not afraid. She will take on anybody and on their turf. You gotta respect that.

Such a gentleman, that guy Mathews is. Talking over a woman is so obnoxious and un-couth. I am from the “hold open the door for a woman generation” and find it difficult to watch a grown man such as Mathews or anyone else shout down a lady. His dad should have taught him more respect.
Forget the content of the debate, men should have respect for females and he obviously does not.

Libs are monologue-ists. They can NOT handle DIALOGUE.
They pick and choose a few words that can easily be taken out of context, without the ‘supporting cast’, so to speak, of the rest of the page/chapter, then proceed to attack mono stlye.

Look around, no lib, dem, lefty will ever enter into TRUE dialogue. They scream “you gotta” or” “you this or that” and run from an answer. After a while, they just pull from the center some words to confuse and to ‘make mean’.
We dont need to act like that, cowardly and deceitful. We encourage dialogue, questions AND answers. Real plans and purposes.
But the leftist mono-ists have no real goals so they can only attack and run. It’s no wonder their war ‘policy’ is the same. Cut and Run. In the literary world, they cut, from the middle, then run.
Loser Libs have no options, we should just understand their deficiencies and move along… tolerating them the best we can.

Do you thinky Chrissy “I Squat to Pee” Matthews sincerely just isn’t smart enough to understand her common sense point about the 9/11 Jersey Gals? Or is he just talking fast and blithering a lot intentionally to try to confuse the audience?

Yup. I just watched part of it again. I see the resemblance, too. Then again, Chrissy “I Squat to Pee” Matthews bears a striking resemblance to the owner of the Double Deuce in the Patrick Swayze B-movie “Roadhouse.”

Maybe it was impersonate vague celebrity day.

And how embarrassing that I remember the name of the bar in a forgettable ’80s flick. On that note … as for Ann, “nobody puts baby in a corner.”

The Matthews-Coulter discussion might have been interesting if he’d had the common decency to shut the !@# up and let her answer the questions. But … he couldn’t do that, of course, because … (wait for it) … Libs are monologue-ists.

Matthews – isn’t the ‘caveman’ who interviewed our own Michelle in ’02 and made such an ass of himself.

As I recall he invited her to talk about one thing and then ambushed her on another subject — then talked [ or should I say shouted ] right over her. He wouldn’t even allow her to answer his questions.

Ah… yes…. the sign of truye [lack of] class and intelegence.

[apologogies to any cavemen out there who might be offended by being compared to Matthews].

I didn’t see the debate but, after seeing Mathew’s ratings, neither did 99.9% of other Americans. The only reason you see Coulter slumming with 4th. stringers like Mathews is because she and Bill O’Reilly have an ego clash.

Chris knows damn well what Anns point is. He’s just acting stupid so his liberal friends will understand. He apparently has no sense of humor, or sarcasm detection ability. Anns biting wit and wisdom is way over his hollow little head. Meanwhile, she laughs in his face, all the way to the bank. While Matthews latest book sits collecting dust on the .25 cent discount table in B&N.

AC – from one chick to another: lose the black dress, cut your hair and get a tan. Oh yea, one more thing – cut out the sarcasm. You have a lot of very insightful and TRUE comments that get overshadowed by your arrogance.

Libs are monologue-ists. They can NOT handle DIALOGUE.
They pick and choose a few words that can easily be taken out of context, without the ’supporting cast’, so to speak, of the rest of the page/chapter, then proceed to attack mono stlye.

Look around, no lib, dem, lefty will ever enter into TRUE dialogue. They scream “you gotta” or” “you this or that” and run from an answer. After a while, they just pull from the center some words to confuse and to ‘make mean’.
We dont need to act like that, cowardly and deceitful. We encourage dialogue, questions AND answers. Real plans and purposes.
But the leftist mono-ists have no real goals so they can only attack and run. It’s no wonder their war ‘policy’ is the same. Cut and Run. In the literary world, they cut, from the middle, then run.
Loser Libs have no options, we should just understand their deficiencies and move along… tolerating them the best we can.

If biting sarcasm is frowned upon as a tool of making one’s point in an argument or debate, then I reckon over 50% of us better hang it up. I never had a Commanding Officer in my life who didn’t use it at one time or another. And I and everyone I served with are quite a bit tougher today because of it.

Why don’t we ask the United States Marines if they are offended enough to kill when liberals call them babykillers? What about Muslims when we say they are terrorists or Mohammed is a pedophile? If biting sarcasm and namecalling is not a legitimate tool for use in conflict and argument, then I guess we’d all better become black belts in martial arts and store up on AK-47s and SAWs and M2 machine guns for our next college debates.

Besides, my wife uses harsher language than Ann when I forget to take out the trash. If you can’t take the namecalling, then quite whining when I (and everyone else)think you’re a pussy.

Yup. I just watched part of it again. I see the resemblance, too. Then again, Chrissy “I Squat to Pee” Matthews bears a striking resemblance to the owner of the Double Deuce in the Patrick Swayze B-movie “Roadhouse.”

ROTFLMAO! Good one! Remember the time Tony Snow appeared on his show and said, “I used to f*** guys like you in prison” to Matthews before the two threw down? O.k., it never happened, but it keeps the Roadhouse theme going.

I really can’t stand Matthews. He’s only been funny when SNL used to parody him.

How needy of Chris to ask Ann to maintain their friendly relations (which are better than those she has with the brilliant Allah), after he attacked her, by repeating himself at least 5 times, with the same question. Chris lost his reasoning capacities after the 2004 election.

Ann is blond, brilliant and 44 (will be 45 on Nov. 8 this year). Allah is also brilliant and wrote yesterday that he’s 31. It could be Autumn-Spring, if only she wouldn’t have said that about the NYT building…

Yep, Allah, the fact that she’s still wears that dress in more important than her arguements in her book. Next thing you know, someone will be ignoring the relevence of anything Michelle says because she wore a strapless number in one of her vlogs.

And, yes, the fact that Ann referred to someone as a Greek midget makes anything she says in her book irrelevant. Poor Theos Karamani. Greek midgets unite and Dukakis will lead you to victory! All hail the priestess Kathleen Jamieson for focusing on the words of the racist Republicans and not the message and she will lead you to Taradise.

Subsunk-my hubby isn’t speaking to me because of the sarcastic tongue lashing I gave him over the trash last night…how do you manage to survive under such harsh rule? (We’re newlyweds-first time the trash has caused a lame-ass argument).

On another note, what would happen if Savage and Ann Coulter mated? Would the world implode?

I too am a bit perplexed with Allah’s irrational obsession with Ann and her NYT comment. Since Allah is incapable of understanding the sarcasm let’s actually treat her comment as if it were serious.

Allah, let’s say you have a choice of whether FBI personnel, over a dozen toddlers in a day care center etc…die or Krugman, Dowd, Sultzberger, Rich, Friedman, etc…die. Now, one or the other has to die. Which would you choose?

I’m assuming you’ll skirt the question so in reality it’s just rhetorical.

I too am a bit perplexed with Allah’s irrational obsession with Ann and her NYT comment.

I concur … with all due respect to Allah (May Pizza Be Upon Him).

This taking one remark and focusing on it while ignoring the content and context is … well, so stereotypical of leftist politics.

What I suspect Allah is actually getting at is the thing that bothers me about Coulter – and that is that by GIVING the left these little soundbites, she gives them a way to wiggle around her actual message.

I don’t want her to change much. Keep the ascerbic wit and scathing sarcasm. But once she uses ridiculous hyperbole, even though EVERYBODY knows its hyperbole, liberals will jump on it … to avoid honest debate.

“Let’s invade their countries, kill their leaders, and convert them to Christianity…”

“Blow up the NYT’s building …”

“… enjoying their husband’s deaths …”

Those comments may get attention and sell books, but they also give liberals a get out of jail free card. It gives them permission not to take her seriously. And sadly, 20 years from now they’ll STILL be repeating those lines, no matter what she does in the meantime.

Take away just THOSE kinds of comments, and Coulter becomes a razor sharp and narrowly focused weapon shining the light of truth on liberalism.

So quit giving liberals what they want – and need.

That’s all I want from Ann.

And – putting words in his mouth, so I may be wrong – I’m guessing that’s where Allah’s coming from.

It’s frustrating to see Coulter be SO right SO much of the time, yet see interviews just like this one … where Chrissy “I Squat to Pee” Matthews is able to dance away from the substance and attack irrevant comments.

And for the record, all of the above is why our own Michelle could potentially be a far more effective conservative spokesperson; in fact, she already is – or would be if she had the same level of exposure.

And two, the idea that we shouldn’t focus too closely on words isn’t the most persuasive defense coming from a writer.
Don’t pretend you don’t understand. Ann was chiding the obtuse Matthews for harping on words and phrases while ignoring the ideas that they were used in constructing.

People keep asking me why I write posts about Coulter when I find her so distasteful. Answer: because I like to know who’s reading our site. And the comments on Coulter posts are always very, very revealing in that regard.

Allah, let’s say you have a choice of whether FBI personnel, over a dozen toddlers in a day care center etc…die or Krugman, Dowd, Sultzberger, Rich, Friedman, etc…die. Now, one or the other has to die. Which would you choose?

So someone has to die, huh? There’s no option where Ann just shuts her fat mouth or else wishes that McVeigh had been caught before the bombing or had never gone the crazy militia route or had quietly killed himself instead of 168 other people?

It’s not just the Times quote, either. It’s the stuff about Justice Stevens being poisoned. And the stupidity about Clinton being a homo. And the raghead remark at CPAC — which, I hate to remind you, Michelle also criticized her for. Etc etc.

Don’t pretend you don’t understand. Ann was chiding the obtuse Matthews for harping on words and phrases while ignoring the ideas that they were used in constructing.

So it’d be okay with you guys if I start referring to her on the blog as Ann “Cunt” Coulter? As long as my arguments are sound, you’ll give me a pass on that? I promise you: it would not be okay with Michelle. Some writers are a bit more careful about what they actually write than others, I guess.

What I suspect Allah is actually getting at is the thing that bothers me about Coulter – and that is that by GIVING the left these little soundbites, she gives them a way to wiggle around her actual message.

Well, no, not really. I object to them on their own terms. Imagine if some liberal blogger referred to Michelle as a “chink” (which really doesn’t require much imagination) and was taken to task for it by a second liberal blogger — but only on grounds that it gives conservatives a way to “wiggle around” their message. Would you be satisfied with that criticism? I wouldn’t. The logic of it, implicitly, is that vile sentiments are appropriate so long as the other side can’t exploit them for political gain.

What makes her comments disgusting isn’t that liberals benefit from them. What makes them disgusting is that they’re disgusting.

The the most apt comparison I’ve heard casts Ann as the right’s Mike al-Moor. Both are polemicists, both throw bombs sure to be collected by the other side as evidence of derangement, both make gobs of money, and both refuse to back down for a second. But they also make ideology cool for cats by “keeping it real” and “speaking truth to power” and being all “edgy” and upsetting the established orthodoxy. Neither of them is saying anything terribly unique. Their popularity is entirely due to the sizzle.

Let’s face it: You can’t shock Mom and Dad by bringing home a record that says naughty things anyomore. But if your ‘rents are granola crunchers and you come home from university for the weekend and drop a copy of “Godless” on the dining room table, you’ve got yourself a conversation starter.

It’s infotainment with an emphasis on the ‘tainment and as long as people keep buying it, they’re gonna keep selling it. Might as well get used to it.

All I know is that it is completely infuriating to see AC’s position completely justified repeatedly yet the morons, specfically Chris Matthews this time, who prove her point continue to live in darkness. Newsflash to anyone who thinks AC’s lingo is harsh and want to silence her for it…. “That is her point, you look like fools acting offended, just stop” Chris refused to discuss the facts contained in Ann’s book and I still don’t get why we don’t as conservatives seem plausible when we call out libs who call us names. For instance, Hannity likes to point out all the horrible things Cindy Sheehan has said about GW.. I always cringe when I hear it because I feel like its whining.. I want him to attack her position not her use of namecalling. Anyway.. if you are someone who still doesn’t get it, I give up.

The the most apt comparison I’ve heard casts Ann as the right’s Mike al-Moor. Both are polemicists, both throw bombs sure to be collected by the other side as evidence of derangement, both make gobs of money, and both refuse to back down for a second. But they also make ideology cool for cats by “keeping it real” and “speaking truth to power” and being all “edgy” and upsetting the established orthodoxy. Neither of them is saying anything terribly unique. Their popularity is entirely due to the sizzle.

I disagree. Can anyone show me where Ann has intentionally lied and intentionally misrepresent the facts of a case to make her point?

Do you have any references to Coulter actually making a remark similar to “chink?”

No – “raghead” doesn’t count, particularly if that’s the only comment you can find. First, it’s a time honored-tradition to dehumanize the enemy; I don’t consider people using terms like Jap and Kraut in 1942 to be racist. “Raghead” carries a similar imprimatur now. Second, well, if you call yourself “Allahpundit” you don’t get to call people racist for using “raghead.” Them’s the breaks.

So – has Ann ACTUALLY used a term like “chink?” (And since when is Michelle from China? But I digress …) Or are you actually referring to her more infamous statements like those I listed above?

Because THOSE, obviously, are hyperbole, and not remotely comparable to gratuitously calling someone a “chink.”

Fess up, Allah. You just don’t like her. Nothing wrong with that. I can’t stand Bill O’Reilly. Plenty of conseratives dig him. But just like liberals … you’re hating style over substance. And putting words in her mouth.

And no – calling Dukakis a Greek midget doesn’t count either. Because he’s a Greek midget.

And Vanya … if you think liberals don’t use Coulter’s over-the-top rhetoric to avoid discussing the content of her argument, you need to pass that Kool-Aid you’re guzzling. It’s probably very yummy and awful strong.

AllahPundit is weird on certain issues, such as his penchant for the “constitutional right” (where?) to burn the American flag and now his dislike of Ann Counter, who has been instrumental in the popularizing of the conservative movement, especially among young people.

Think about it: He is acting the exact way liberals act when they dislike the substance of a conservative argument by ad hominem attacks: She dresses bad; she is pale; she is reactionary, she is too mean and nasty. . .

If you want to see mean and nasty, see what libs act like when they are in power. Just take a look at your average college professor or socialist dictator.

That’s her whole point in her “New Jersey girls” and “raghead” comments. There are certain things or persons that libs have made “infallible” and no one can criticize them or make fun of them. She is purposely pushing the status quo and should be commended for it.

It is scary how the now very common “sensitivity training” and “diversity training” by corporations and county, state, and federal government departments affect people. People literally start quivering if they are to say anything that appears to make them look racist in the view of liberals.

This has real repercussions, such as AllahPundit’s fear of Ann Counter or the FBI’s fear of saying the shooting at the Jewish center was terrorism or local police department fears of upseting illegal aliens or liberal pressure groups.

If you believe Coulter’s whining “don’t look at my words but the meaning,” and that she is not totally aware of what she is doing with her rhetoric, you’re drunker on kool-aid than Mel Gibson. She knows she would get no notice of her bogus arguments if she didn’t use outrageous language. That’s why she does it.

Vanya,
A sure way for me to not give a rat fart about anything you have to say is for you to say that AC’s argument’s are bogus.
For the rest of you, here is a fun AC link sure to get the lefties blood boiling.

She knows she would get no notice of her bogus arguments if she didn’t use outrageous language. That’s why she does it.

This is typical liberal argument technique when they can’t debate an issue: Make a generality with no substance (and make fun of the person’s appearance). What argument of hers is specifically “bogus”?

If anyone wants a great read on liberal techniques in arguing (besides viciously attacking a person’s appearance, i.e their dress), check out George Orwell’s essay, “Politics and the English Language.”

Januarius – all of them. She says no one can attack the NJ widows. Well, she is attacking them, and she is getting more attention than they ever did. She says the widows are presented as “experts.” They are not, they are just women who lost their husbands and want answers. She says they are using 9/11 to advance their political agenda. Everyone does that, including Bush and Coulter.She attacks them personally because she doesn’t like their politics. That’s bogus.

She says no one can attack the NJ widows. Well, she is attacking them, and she is getting more attention than they ever did.

Hmmmmm….The Jersey Girls are involved in Congressional investigations, but you say Coulter got more attention?

The Jersey Girls get book and movie offers, but Coulter makes the NYT Best Seller List due to her own hard work.

Yet the Left doesn’t attack Coulter’s arguement. No. They are more concerned her challenge to the Jersey Harpies and whether or not she eats enough.

They are not, they are just women who lost their husbands and want answers.

Which is why they shouldn’t be challenged when they publically endorse the Mr. Flip-Flop. Wasn’t that Coulter’s point?

She says they are using 9/11 to advance their political agenda. Everyone does that…

Uh….no. Everyone does not. There were more victim’s survivors than just the Jersey Girls. Anyone remember seeing them on TV and getting the same kind of press coverage? Of all the thousands of victims survivors, the only ones to get any press to speak of are the ones who blame Bush for 9/11.

….including Bush and Coulter.

I find it interesting that its OK for the Democrats to use 9/11 imagery and the Jersey Girls’ celebrity victim status to promote John Kerry, but Democrat-affiliated groups such as September Eleventh Families for Peaceful Tomorrows demanded that the Republicans remove all ads that included any reference to 9/11 “used for partisan political gain.” Again, one of Coulter’s points.

Its the double standard that’s bogus. You just don’t like Coulter pointing it out.